Complaint filed on: 02-12-2016 Disposed on:28-07-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.151/2016
DATED THIS THE 28thDAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Rajeshwari
W/o. Mallikarjun,
40 years, R/at Halanuru post,
Kasaba hobli, Tumakuru taluk,
(By advocate Sri.P.T.Thippanna)
V/s
Opposite party:-
The Manager,
Indian Infoline Finance Ltd,
Tumakuru branch, Code BM100, 2nd Floor, Siddaganga Complex,
Behind LIC office, BH Road, Tumakuru
(By advocate Sri.P.Mahesh)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPto return back the gold ornaments and award compensation of Rs.25,000=00 towards negligence and deficiency in service and grant such other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
On 17-2-2016 the complainant had pledged her gold ornament weighed about 5.6 grams for Rs.9,550=00 with the OP vide receipt No.6166478, Unique Identity No.E353A44El, loan account No.GL6014566 and the said gold loan was valid till 16-1-2017.
The complainant submitted that, on 22-6-2016 the OP had issued reminder loan notice and presale notice to the complainant within the loan period. The above said notice had sent to the complainant on 7-7-2016 through post and the notice was served on 18-7-2016. In the notice, the OP had stated that, to pay the loan amount within 10 days.
The complainant further submitted that, on 25-7-2016, the complainant visited the OP office and asked him to return back the pledged gold ornament, but the OP did not return back the pledged gold ornament. In this regard, the complainant had sent the notice to the OP on 22-6-2016, but the OP did not respond to the said notice.
The complainant further submitted that, the OP had sold the pledged gold ornament within the loan period illegally and violated the terms and conditions of the gold loan. The OP has acted negligence and deficiency in service against the terms and condition of the gold loan. On 24-8-2016 the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP through RPAD. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
3. After service of notice, the OPhas appeared through his counsel and filed objections contending interalia as under.
The complaint is not maintainable in law as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The OP submitted that, the complainant had agreed and accepted the terms and conditions of the gold loan agreement and signed the application form. As per the agreed loan agreement the complainant has to pay an interest on monthly basis and the interest will accrue on day to day basis. The complainant had not paid any interest on the loan amount, even after issuing the notice and publication in the newspaper on 11-7-2016. Hence, the gold ornament was sold in the public auction and intimated the matter through notice dated 11-8-2016 and called upon the complainant to receive the excess amount of Rs.1,320=00. The complainant without receiving the refund amount had filed this false complaint against the OP. All the procedures as contemplated under law are followed and there is no deficiency of service.
The OP further submitted that, the term of the loan is not the criteria for action of the gold but the default of interest is the criteria. As the complainant has failed to repay the monthly interest, the loan become default loan and the OP will get the right to auction the gold ornament as per term 5 (d) of the agreement. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Both parties have produced documents.We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the documents and posted the case for order.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPas alleged by the complainant?
- What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7.On perusal of theaverments of complaint andobjections of the OPand documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had pledged her gold ornament weighed about 5.6 grams for Rs.9,550=00 with the OP.The said gold loan was valid till 16-1-2017. It is also admitted fact that, the OP had issued a presale notice to the complainant and after sale of the gold ornaments, the OP had issued refund of excess sale amount. To substantiate the above said fact, the complainant has produced sanction letter dated 17-2-2016, the reminder letter dated 22-6-2016,refund of excess sale amount post auction letter dated 11-8-2016 and legal notice of complainant dated 24-8-2016. So this evidence has not been denied by the OP, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant.
8. The main allegation of the complainant is that, within the loan period, the OP had sold the gold ornaments.
9.On the other hand, the OP submitted that, the complainant had agreed and accepted the terms and conditions of the gold loan agreement and signed the application form. After, the complainant had not paid any interest on the loan amount, after issuing the notice and publication in the news paper. Hence, the gold ornament was sold in the public auction as per terms and conditions of 5(1) (d) of the agreement and intimated through notice dated 11-8-2016.
10.On perusal of the terms and conditions of the OP in the sanction letter dated 17-2-2016, it is clearly show that, the terms and conditions of 5(1)(d) is as follows:
“In case of any default in the repayment of interest/installment/principal amount/any other amount, charges. I authorized IIFL to sell all or any of my pledged articles in any order deemed favorable and most profitable by IIFL and recover the principle amount of the loan and interest along with cost, charges and all other amount payable in respect to the loan. In case of any deficiency after the above sale, I authorize IIFL to recover the amount from him personally. In case, I default in repaying the said deficit amount IIFL shall have to right to initiate legal action against him to take possession and sell any/all the movable and immovable properties belong to me”.
As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the interest will accrue every month and after three months, the loan will be considered as default loan. The complainant has to pay the loan interest every month. The complainant has not produced any document to show that, she was paying the interest amount every month. Hence in the absence of documentary evidence, we come to conclusion that, she was not paying monthly interest amount. Hence, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
11. Further the auction notice of the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant has published in local daily news paper dated 11-07-2916.As per the paper publication, it is seen that, the OP has mentioned auction dated 15-7-2016.
12. Admittedly, the OP had issued reminder notice and presale notice to the complainant on 22-6-2016 and requested the complainant to pay the loan interest amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter, but the complainant had failed to pay the loan amount. Hence the OP has auctioned the pledged gold ornaments on 15-7-2016 as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
13. Further, the complainant contended that he had visited the OP office and asked for the release of the pledged gold ornament before auction, but the OP had not release the pledged gold ornaments. In this regard, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence before the forum, without documentary we cannot accepted the contention of the complainant. Hence, the OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Hence we do not find any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP in conducting the public auction of gold ornament of complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has not acted in accordance with the terms and condition of agreement and has committed default in paying the loan amount along with interest well within the stipulated period. Hence, we come to conclusion that, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP in conducting the public auction as per the terms and condition of the agreement and accordingly we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant ishereby dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 28thday of July 2017).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
